Ten Years of Performance Evaluation for Concurrent Systems Using CADP

  • Nicolas Coste
  • Hubert Garavel
  • Holger Hermanns
  • Frédéric Lang
  • Radu Mateescu
  • Wendelin Serwe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6416)


This article comprehensively surveys the work accomplished during the past decade on an approach to analyze concurrent systems qualitatively and quantitatively, by combining functional verification and performance evaluation. This approach lays its foundations on semantic models, such as Imc (Interactive Markov Chain) and Ipc (Interactive Probabilistic Chain), at the crossroads of concurrency theory and mathematical statistics. To support the approach, a number of software tools have been devised and integrated within the Cadp (Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes) toolbox. These tools provide various functionalities, ranging from state space generation (Cæsar and Exp.Open), state space minimization (Bcg_Min and Determinator), numerical analysis (Bcg_Steady and Bcg_Transient), to simulation (Cunctator). Several applications of increasing complexity have been successfully handled using these tools, namely the Hubble telescope lifetime prediction, performance comparison of mutual exclusion protocols, the Scsi-2 bus arbitration protocol, the Send/Receive and Barrier primitives of Mpi (Message Passing Interface) implemented on a cache-coherent multiprocessor architecture, and the xSTream multiprocessor data-flow architecture for embedded multimedia streaming applications.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC: LOTOS — a formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization — Information Processing Systems — Open Systems Interconnection, Genève (September 1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: Automated compositional Markov chain generation for a plain-old telephone system. Science of Computer Programming 36(1), 97–127 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermanns, H.: Interactive Markov Chains. LNCS, vol. 2428. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coste, N., Hermanns, H., Lantreibecq, E., Serwe, W.: Towards performance prediction of compositional models in industrial gals designs. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 204–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vissers, C.A., Scollo, G., van Sinderen, M., Brinksma, E.: Specification styles in distributed systems design and verification. Theoretical Computer Science 89(1), 179–206 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansson, H.A.: Time and Probability in Formal Design of Distributed Systems. Elsevier Science Inc., Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hermanns, H., Joubert, C.: A set of performance and dependability analysis components for CADP. In: Garavel, H., Hatcliff, J. (eds.) TACAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2619, pp. 425–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garavel, H.: Open/Cæsar: An open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation of LOTOS abstract data types. In: Vuong, S.T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Description Techniques FORTE 1989, Vancouver B.C., Canada, pp. 147–162. North Holland, Amsterdam (December 1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and verification of LOTOS specifications. In: Logrippo, L., Probert, R.L., Ural, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Ottawa, Canada. IFIP, pp. 379–394. North Holland, Amsterdam (June 1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garavel, H., Serwe, W.: State space reduction for process algebra specifications. Theoretical Computer Science 351(2), 131–145 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang, F.: 2.0: A flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blom, S., Orzan, S.: Distributed state space minimization. Springer International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 7(3), 280–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deavours, D.D., Sanders, W.H.: An efficient well-specified check. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models PNPM 1999, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 124–133. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart, W.J.: Introduction to the Numerical Solution of Markov Chains. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen, A.: Markov chains as an aid in the study of markov processes. Skand. Aktuarietidskrift 3, 87–91 (1953)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox, B.L., Glynn, P.W.: Computing Poisson probabilities. Communications of the ACM 31(4), 440–445 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hermanns, H.: Construction and verification of performance and reliability models. Bulletin of the EATCS 74, 135–154 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: A study of shared-memory mutual exclusion protocols using CADP. In: Kowalewski, S., Roveri, M. (eds.) FMICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6371, pp. 180–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garavel, H., Hermanns, H.: On combining functional verification and performance evaluation using CADP. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 410–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chehaibar, G., Zidouni, M., Mateescu, R.: Modeling multiprocessor cache protocol impact on mpi performance. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Quantitative Evaluation of Large-Scale Systems and Technologies QuEST 2009, Bradford, UK. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisentraut, C., Hermanns, H., Zhang, L.: On probabilistic automata in continuous time. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2010. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bohnenkamp, H.C., D’Argenio, P.R., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: MoDeST: A compositional modeling formalism for hard and softly timed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 32(10), 812–830 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baier, C., Haverkort, B., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: Performance evaluation and model checking join forces. Communications of the ACM 53(9), 76–85 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, L., Neuhäußer, M.R.: Model checking interactive markov chains. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Coste
    • 1
  • Hubert Garavel
    • 2
  • Holger Hermanns
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frédéric Lang
    • 2
  • Radu Mateescu
    • 2
  • Wendelin Serwe
    • 2
  1. 1.STMicroelectronicsGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Inria Grenoble – Rhône-AlpesMontbonnotFrance
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer ScienceSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations